I figure that ‘learning’ a piece means knowing the notes, the muscle memory of the notes, and the technique required to play them. During learning stages, do you think much about how different your gestures or movements will be when playing the piece at tempo?

I’m thinking about efficiency and economy of motions generally, but also that thing of how certain physical actions may differ in slow practice compared to performance speed - for example scalar passages (turning the thumb under vs. shifting the hand), skips and jumps, or even articulation.

Do you find that the differences even matter in the end? At one extreme I can imagine frequently testing out whether something will work at the target speed (and even fast-practicing small chunks) - and at the other extreme just not worrying about it and figuring that it will take care of itself naturally. (Personally I find the necessary motions *do* evolve and adapt as speed increases, but I still tend to overthink the learning process - worrying I’m not absorbing something in the most rapid way, or that I’m ingraining something I needn’t or shouldn’t.)

Based on my own experience, I would agree that you may be overthinking the process. I concentrate on using the most efficient movements possible while being as relaxed as possible at whatever speed I am playing and let the physical body mechanics take care of themselves.

Regards,

Absolutely, I do think about this a great deal and I do indeed think it makes a difference in the end. For me, it seems to boil down to selecting a fingering combination that facilities ease of playing and proper phrasing. What might work at learning and practice speed might cause a stumble, freeze or phrase break at target speed. Furthermore, two equally efficient fingerings might give entirely different sounds or emphasis because of minute breaks caused by a jump or thumb-under or tiny changes in weight distribution as you change fingers. On the other hand, a minute break caused by fingering might be the exact effect the composer wants. These tiny imperfections are next to impossible to detect, eliminate or plan for when you are in the learning stages unless you have very sharp ears and know the piece extremely well. These same imperfections can really make a huge difference in your polished performance. Sometimes I can identify a potential problem but I am always grateful when my teacher points these out before I learn a particular fingering. Unlearning fingering and learning new fingering is a miserable process.

Here is an example of how a fingering choice can change the sound of a passage, but only when it is brought up to tempo. Take a look at measures 443 and 448. The suggested fingering produces a distinctive sound:


In measures 443 and 448 the Henle, Schabel and von Bulow editions all start the 2nd triplet on the 3rd (or 4th) finger. This produces a tiny gap between the triplets. I would naturally play this 4-3-2-1. When I do so, the arpeggio sounds smooth with no gap. Three publishers ask for the same fingering - which I think is somewhat less efficient and causes a slight bump. I wonder if the fingering suggestion might be Beethoven's own. If I learn this "my way", will I be producing the correct sound? Is the gap because of my small hands or is it deliberate? I'm going to ask my teacher tomorrow.

Thanks for your responses.

Bruce - I do think I'm overthinking. It's sort of OCD-related - but I like and admire your approach.

Deborah - I get what you mwan, and the musical example in your graphic illustrates the significance of fingering *to phrasing* apart from mere considerations of comfort. I am guessing that the publishers you mention would suggest 3 or 4 on note in question with the presumption that the thumb would be used on the preceding note - and are thinking of the general principle that passing long fingers (3 or 4) over a short one (1) facilitates the change in hadn position.

The same presumption is made in, say, an ascending B major or E major scale - said to be the 'easiest' - because the thumb easily passes under the longer third finger.

My real question - and issue! - is that in *slow* practice of scales and arpeggios, the thumb is likely to be pivoting point for lateral movement of the wrist. When the same passages are played fast, economy and efficiency of motion will require that the entire hand shift laterally instead.

So - even with the 'correct' fingering already in place for fast execution - which *motions* should be used at various practice speeds? I am especially thinking of very fast scales that literally *zip* up the keyboard with the right hand (or down the keyboard with the left hand).

Consider those in Chopin's 24th prelude, for example. If mastery means being to play a piece at any speed - but the motions itself differs depending on the speed - *which* motion should be used at slow or intermediate-speed practice? Which motion should be used initially when learning the notes?

THAT's what's bugging me most presently. Thumb-under - lateral pivoting at the wrist - produces a smooth scale at slow speed, but it actually inhibits the same scale at high speed when the hand itself will instead shift laterally with little-or-no pivoting at the wrist.

Even if it 'all comes out in the wash' - and, as I said, it seems to for me (as well it should at my age) - I find that I am preoccupied with analyzing what my hands and fingers are actually *doing* at various practice speeds in a way that I was not before. For better or worse.

pianomie, I think what you are referring has been given the confusing name: "thumb-over" in which you let your momentum carry your entire arm to the new notes with minimal thumb under rather than pivoting or relying solely on the thumb under. I've seen inexperienced pianists persist in attempting the pivot with their elbows flying in every direction. It sounds awful and looks torturous. I believe experienced pianists naturally evolve into the thumb over lateral motion when the music is brought up to tempo.

pianomie, I'm sure you are well beyond the elbows-in-every- direction stage so other than a quick check to make sure you are letting go and moving on, I wouldn't worry about it.

I think you guys are actually agreeing. Concentrating on the most efficient and relaxed motions is precisely what needs to be done in performance. As long as you are doing this in practice, you will be okay.

A major part of practicing IS thinking about what exactly it means to be most efficient. Sometimes the "easiest" or most "natural" motions cause more problems than they solve. I can think of at least two spots in the concerto I'm working on now where I've had to go back and rethink my approach to eliminate tension that was several measures past where the problem actually was.

Oh yeah, 'thumb-over' is exactly what I what I was thinking of - a necessity at fast tempo, but not necessary (or even natural) at slow speed. I didn't use the term 'thumb-over' because it's either attributed to or associated with C.C. Chang and controversy that clouds his reputation.

Isn't it interesting how - in my experience and probably that of many, or most, or all, others - the necessary motions *do* adjust themselves to increasing speed? I just don't get how that works, or why it works, or why - once we're capable of the target tempo - we're still able to revert to slow practice and the motions that accompany slow practice.

Here's a question this is obviously related to: what's the 'tempo tipping point' in scales and arpeggios when thumb-under becomes 'thumb-over' naturally? - and what determines that? Even though I've never felt hindered by not knowing - and I guess it doesn't need to be overanalyzed after all! - I do feel frustrated by not understanding it better (if for no reason besides practice time that's maximized for focus and concentration and minimizes wasted time and effort).

I didn't know it was associated with Chang. I've heard a lot of criticism about his methods but have no direct experience with him. IMO "thumb over" is a very misleading name. "Passing over" seems more accurate.

I suppose it has to do with dexterity, flexibility and hand size, all of which make it a very individual process.

Sounds good, but I figured that there was something neurological there as well related to cognitive memory, muscle memory, and the flexibility of those processes to accommodate different motions under different circumstances - even as the notes played are the same.

Although we must be careful in what context we use the expression "passing over" musn't we? I wouldn't want scales to be the death of me!

Cheers!

Ha ha! I was thinking it sounded like musical matzoh!